K.V.V.Satyanarayana

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

GURAZALA

PRESENT Sri K.V.V. SATYANARAYANA,

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurazala.

Tuesday, this the 27th day of August, 2024.

C.C.No.312/2019

Between: -

Andugula Ashok Kumar, S/o.Saiman, Age 45 Years, R/o.Gurazala Village and Mandal, Guntur District… Complainant

And

Gidutoori Srinivasa Rao, S/o.Babu Rao, Age 43 Years, Copyist in Work review Section, First Floor in High Court, Nalapadu, Amaravathi, Guntur District. … Accused

This case is coming before me on 22-08-2024 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Ch.Koteswara Rao, learned counsel for the Complainant and of Sri D.Kiran Das, Learned Advocate for the Accused and on hearing both the sides, this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01.This is private a complaint filed by the complainant against the accused for the offence under sections 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act).

02.The contents of the complaint in brief are that: The accused had borrowed an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- form the complainant on 07-08- 2016 for his family expenses and executed a promissory note in his favour, unconditionally undertaking to repay the same together with interest @ 24% per annum and upon repeated demands made by the complainant personally and through mediators, on 23-02-2019, the accused had issued a cheque bearing No. 538426 for Rs. 7,50,000/- drawn on State Bank of

India, High Court, Hyderabad in favour of the complainant, towards part satisfaction of the total debt due. The said cheque was presented by the complainant on 26-03-2018 for collection, through his banker, State Bank of India, Gurazala and the same was dishonoured on the same day for insufficiency of funds to the credit of the accused’s bank account.

Subsequently, the complainant got issued a statutory legal notice to the accused, through his counsel, on 28-03-2018 and the same was served on the accused on 30-03-2019 and that the complainant, after waiting for the statutory period of 15 days, filed this complaint on 29-4-2019, with in the limitation prescribed under section 142 of NI Act, 1881.

03.After recording the sworn statement, the case was taken cognizance of against the accused and summons were issued. On appearance of accused, copies were furnished to him and was examined under section 251 Cr.P.C by explaining the substance of accusation against him under section 138 NI Act, to which he denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

04.During trial, the complainant examined himself as P.W 1 and got Ex.

P1 to P6 Viz., Cheque for Rs.7,50,000/-, dated 23-02-2019, drawn on

State Bank of India, High Court, Hyderabad, by the accused in favour of the complainant; Counter Foil Dt. 26-03-2019; Cheque return memo,

dated: 26-03-2019 issued by State Bank of India, Gurazala; Office Copy of

legal notice, dated: 28-03-2019; Postal acknowledgement card; Original

Promissory Note for Rs.5,00,000/- dated 07-08-2016 executed by the accused in favour of the complainant, marked in his favour and got examined on Ambati Papa Rao, who is the scribe of Ex. P6 as P.W 2 and prosecution evidence is closed. This court then examined the accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C for the incriminating circumstance appearing against him in the prosecution evidence to which he denied and reported that he has evidence in his defence. He examined himself as D.W. 1 and

Ex. D1 to D5 Viz., Roc.No.346/PIO/JUDL/RT1/2022, dt. 26-9-2022/issued by SPIO(Judicial)APHC, Photo copy of Letter to Deputy Registrar cum

Drawing Officer, Hon'ble APHC, dt. 2-3-2023, Certificate issued by Deputy

Registrar cum Drawing and disbursing officer, Hon'ble High Court of

Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi dt: 21-3-2023, Acknowledgment of request letter by the accused and addressed to the Hon'ble Registrar (Vigilance),

APHC, AMARAVATHI, dt. 25-3-2023 and Certificate issued by Deputy

Registrar cum Drawing and disbursing officer, Hon'ble High Court of

Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi dt. 1-4-2023 were marked in his favour and the defence evidence is closed.

05.Now, the points for determination are:

1. Whether there exists a legally enforceable debt between the

complainant and the accused? If so, Whether the accused rebutted

the presumptions under the provisions of Negotiable Instruments

Act, 1881?

2. Whether Ex. P1 Cheque was issued by the accused for discharge of a legally enforceable debt?

3. If so, Whether the statutory notice issued by the complainant is

served on the accused to attract the liability under section 138 NI

Act?

4. Whether the complainant proved the guilt of the accused beyond

reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under Secs.138 and 142

of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881?

06.Heard the counsels for the complainant and the accused.

07.The counsel for the complainant submitted that, the cheque was issued towards part satisfaction of legally enforceable debt and that as the accused admitted his signatures on Exs. P1 and P6, presumptions can be drawn in favour of the complainant. He further submitted that the notice issued was served on the accused on 29-03-2019, but it was mistakenly mentioned as 30-03-2019 in the complaint and that the same was admitted by the accused in his cross examination and hence, the accused is liable to be punished.

08.The counsel for the accused submitted that Ex. P6 is from

Hyderabad, and it has a receipt attached, and the same shall be with the accused if the accused had executed the same and that the same was admitted by PW 1 in his cross examination and that the accused never had any acquaintance with the complainant and that the alleged cheque and promissory note were given by the accused to the counsel of the complainant, in connection with a chit transaction. The defence counsel stressed on the contention that the legal notice, alleged to have been issued by the complainant was never received by the accused and substantiated his argument by stating that the alleged date of service i.e., 30-03-2019 is a Saturday and the same is a holiday for the staff working under Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh Registry and relied on Ex. D1 to D5.

Point No. 1: Whether there exists a legally enforceable debt between

the complainant and the accused? If so, Whether the accused

rebutted the presumptions under the provisions of Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881?

09.On perusal of the material on record and the evidence adduced, it could be seen that Ex. P1 cheque was issued in discharge of the debt due under Ex. P6. D.W1, in his cross examination, admitted that the signatures on Exs. P1 and P6 belong to him and he signed the said documents. The making of Ex.P6 promissory note is undisputed and the said note was made on 07-08-2016 and the same is not barred by limitation. Hence the it could safely be concluded that, there is a legally enforceable debt between the complainant and accused.

10.The primary defense of the accused is that he has no acquaintance with the complainant and that he never executed Ex. P4 nor issued Ex. P1 cheque to the complainant. Complainant admitted that he has no direct acquaintance with the accused and that he is acquainted to him through his counsel, AKKR. It is the burden of the accused to show how, the cheque and promissory note went into the hands of the complainant. To substantiate his allegation, he deposed that, he has acquaintance with one

Kishore Reddy, advocate at Hon’ble High Court of AP, and he issued two blank signed cheques to the said Kishore Reddy along with Ex. P1 cheque as a security in relation to a chit transaction and that he learnt after receipt of the summons in this case that the said Kishore Reddy is a native of

Gurazala and that the complainant and the attestors of Ex. P6 are all residents of nearby villages and that the said Kishore Reddy in collusion with the complainant got this case filed against him. However, except the oral deposition, he did not file even a scrape of documentary evidence in support of his case, neither he examined any other participant of the chits as alleged by him. It was elicited in his cross examination that the said

Kishore Reddy @ AKKR, who is the counsel for the complainant, did not conduct chits and that he used to run chits in the name of his brother-in- law and that he discharged the entire chit transaction amount. Contra to his contention, in his re-examination, he deposed that he is ready to settle the matter with the said AKKR, but not with the complainant. Moving further, it is the allegation of the accused that he had not received the statutory notice got issued by the complainant and that if at all he had received the same, he would have issued a reply to the same, being an educated person and having knowledge of legal proceedings. This gives rise to the question what happened to his legal knowledge in case of demand for return of the cheques issued to the said AKKR, if he had discharged his liability under chit transaction. Though, the fact of alleged chit transaction is not relevant, it is essential to have a look about the statements of accused to know about the veracity of his evidence. In his cross-examination, initially he stated that he discharged the chit liability, but at a later stage he stated that, he did not get any legal notice issued to the said AKKR to return the blank signed cheques. Being a person with legal awareness, as contended by him, he must have issued a notice to said AKKR, to return the cheques, if he had discharged the liability.

11.It is further argued that Ex. P6 is not in usage, in Andhra Pradesh and that it is in use in Hyderabad and that the receipt which is with Ex. P6 shall be delivered to the accused, and the same version is supported by the deposition of PW. 1, where he admitted that, in general the receipt of the promissory note shall be in possession of the debt and he further said that, accused failed to collect the same. However, non-delivery of receipt cannot be considered to be fatal to the complainant’s case, as it is the duty of the accused to collect the same and moreover, when the signature on the promissory note is admitted, it can no way effect the presumption drawn.

From the above discussion I am of the considered view, that the accused failed to rebut the presumption drawn in favour of the complainant under section 139 NI Act.

Point No. 2: Whether Ex. P1 Cheque was issued by the accused for

discharge of a legally enforceable debt?

12.The next question to be answered is interdependent on point no. 1.

There is clear admission of signatures on Ex. P1 and P6 by the accused and the same leads to drawing presumptions under section 118 and 139 of

NI Act. This view is supported by the celebrated decision of Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India in the case of Basalingappa Vs. Mudibasappa (2019), where it was concluded that “Once the execution of cheque is

admitted Section 139 of the Act mandates a presumption that the

cheque was for the discharge of any debt or other liability”. With the help of above decision, the 2nd point too is answered in favour of the complainant and the accused.

Point No. 3: If so, Whether the statutory notice issued by the complainant is

served on the accused to attract the liability under section 138 NI Act?

13.Extensive arguments have been advanced on this point by both the counsels. It is an admitted fact that the accused is an employee working in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. It is the case of prosecution that the notice was served on accused on 30-03-2019, as per the averments in the complaint. The same was the evidence of the complainant as P.W 1.

During the cross-examination by defence counsel, P.W. 1 denied the suggestion that, the legal notice Dt. 28-03-2019 was not serve on the accused on 30-03-2019, as the said day was a public holiday to the

Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the accused was not on duty.

In order to prove his contention, the accused obtained Ex. D1 to D5, and as per Ex. D1, the Hon’ble High Court was working only for 5 days a week (i.e., Monday to Friday) till 29-10-2019 and the employees will have duties on rotation basis and Ex. D5 shows that the accused was not on duty on 30-3-2019. It was further alleged that the counsel for the complainant, being a practising advocate in High Court of Andhra Pradesh, managed to get Ex. P5 postal acknowledgment as served. The prosecution took a turn in its case and then started alleging that the notice was actually served on 29-03-2019 and it was mistakenly mentioned in the complaint as the same was served on 30-3-0219, it was contended that in the cross-examination of D.W. 1, by the complainant’s counsel, he admitted that Ex. P5 bears a stamp and that the date in the stamp, where the accused put his signature is 29-03-2019 only and not 30-09-2019 and that 29th being Friday, he was on duty, but denied the suggestion that he received the said notice on 29th of march 2019.

14.The defence of the accused includes an allegation, that the signature on Ex. P5 does not belong to the accused. He admitted his signature on Ex. P 1 and P 6. To have a clear picture of the case, this court examined Ex. P5. On a careful examination of the stamp beneath the signature of accused on Ex. P5, it could be seen that the date is 29-03- 2019 only and not 30-03-2019. Further, the accused denied the said signature to be his, but on comparing the admitted signatures of the accused on Ex. P1 and P6, an ordinary prudent man could conclude that he said signature on Ex. P5 too belongs to the accused. Hence, I am of the considered view that the fact of receipt of statutory legal notice is proved in accordance with the definition provided for the term “proved” under section 3 of Indian Evidence Act. This view also finds its support from the evidence of D.W 1, wherein he deposed that he was ready to send the said acknowledgement for comparison to an expert, but he did not take any steps towards that end. Hence, adverse inference under section 114

Indian Evidence could also be drawn against the accused and in favour of the complaint’s submission.

15.It is a fact, that the date of delivery of notice according to the complaint is 30-03-2019, but the stamp on Ex. P5 is 29-03-2019 and the same is supported by admission by the accused. Further, from the above discussion as to denial of signature on Ex. P5 and not send of the same for expert opinion and other reasons mentions above leads this court answered this point too, in favour of the complainant and against the accused. Hence, this court is of the view that the service of notice, to the accused is sufficient as required under section 138 of NI Act, to give raise to the cause of action under the Act.

16.This court also considered the allegation by the accused and the admission of the complainant in his cross examination, as to the address to which the legal notice was issued and the address of the accused as shown in Ex. P6. It was stated by P.W. 1, that he got the legal notice issued to the accused to the address, that was mentioned in Ex. P6 and that as on the date of execution of Ex. P6, the accused is working at Joint

High Court for the states of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, at Hyderabad and that the notice was issued with the address of Hon’ble High Court of

Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. As seen from Ex. P6, it does not contain the details at to the High Court of particular state. Thought it was mentioned as “R/o” by the scribe, the details mentioned, Viz., Copyist in

Work Review Section, 1st floor in High Court, it is more as to the occupation of the accused, that the address. It was suggested and denied by P.W 1, that the address mentioned in Ex. P6 is not correct as there is no Copy section in the first floor of the Hon’ble High Court, either at

Hyderabad or Amaravathi. When the notice was delivered to the accused and the same was received, this court is of the view, it is immaterial as to the details of address. However, there might be an interpretation that when the address of accused where he was in the 2019 is mentioned in Ex. P6, which was alleged to have been executed in the year 2016, the date of execution of Ex. P6 may be doubted. But, Ex. P6 does not contain the address where the accused is working in the year 2019, it bears the details of his employment alone, but not the place, except for 1st floor in High

Court. Further, it is not even alleged or submitted by the defence that, the accused is working at the 1st floor of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and thus the Ex. P6 was fabricated with the details of his work place in 2019 and that the said promissory note was not executed in 2016. Thus, even the simple said contention could not support the defence case. Even if the said contention is considered valid for a while, when the execution of

Ex. P6 is admitted, the fillings up of details, subsequently is valid, id done in accordance with section 20 and the same does not amount to material alteration under section 87 of NI Act.

17.Further, as per the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra

Pradesh reported in AIR 2006 Cri. L.J 1, where in it was held that, “40. The mere loss of the demand promissory note or its non- production by itself would not be sufficient to hold that there was no legally enforceable debt. There are no other probable circumstances placed by the accused in the process of discharge of his burden. The failure of the

accused in giving reply to the legal notice issued by P.W. I is one of

the strong circumstances to draw an inference that the accused

borrowed the amount from P.W. 1 and the cheque was issued

towards part payment of the legally enforceable debt.”

Point No. 4: Whether the complainant proved the guilt of the accused

beyond reasonable doubt for the offence punishable U/s 138 and 142 of

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881?

18.In the cases under 138 NI Act, the initial burden is not the complainant to prove the existence of legally enforceable debt and then the prosecution could have the support of presumptions under sections 118 and 139 of the Act. However, in order to invoke said presumptions, the complainant shall initially establish that the cheque under question was issued towards, discharge of legally enforceable debt or liability. The

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Venugopal vs Madan P.

Sarathi, held that “Indisputably, in view of the decisions of this Court in Krishna Janardhan Bhat (supra), the initial burden was on the complainant. The presumption raised in favour of the holder of the cheque must be kept confined to the matters covered thereby. The presumption raised does not extend to the extent that the cheque was issued for the discharge of any debt or liability which is required to be proved by the complainant. In a case of this nature, however, it is essentially a question of fact.”

19.In the case on hand the complainant successfully established that there is a legally enforceable debt and this court invoked the presumptions available in his favour, but the accused failed to rebut the presumption.

20.In view of my above findings and reasons to points 1 to 3, coupled with the oral evidence of Pws.1 and 2 and the documentary evidence produce, the guilt of the accused for the offence under section 138 of NI Act is unequivocally established and this court is of the view that the accused is not entitled to benefit either 360 Cr.P.C or the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act and is liable to be punishmed for the said offence.

21.In the result the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under

Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Accordingly, the accused is convicted for the same under Sec.255(2) and (3) Cr.P.C.

Typed to my Dictation by the stenographer Grade-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 27 th day of August, 2024.

Sd/- Sri K.V.V.Satyanarayana,

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Gurazala.

22.Heard the accused regarding the quantum of sentence. He pleaded mercy stating that he is a Government employee and has family with two male children and that he is suffering from health issues.

In view of the facts and the circumstances of the case and of the plea taken by the accused this court is not inclined to show any mercy on the accused.

23.Accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.11,00,000/- out of which the total amount is ordered to be given to the complainant towards compensation under section 357 of Cr.P.C, within one month from the date of this judgment, in case of default, accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Accused is informed of his right to prefer appeal on this judgment.

Typed to my Dictation by the stenographer Grade-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 27 th day of August, 2024.

Sd/- Sri K.V.V.Satyanarayana,

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Gurazala.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW.1- Andugula Ashok KumarDW.1- G.Srinivasa Rao

PW.2- Ambati Papa Rao

Documents Marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1- Cheque, dated:23-02-2019 issued by the Accused for Rs.7,50,000/- drawn on the bank of S.B.I. High Court of Telangana. Johnsi Bazar. Hyderabad Branch.

Ex.P2- Counter foil, dated:26-03-2019.

Ex.P3- Cheque return memo dated 26-03-2019.

Ex.P4- Office copy of legal notice, date:28-03-2019.

Ex.P5- is the acknowledgment card.

Ex.P6- is the Original Promissory note dated: 07-08-2016

For Defence:

Ex.D.1:Roc.No.346/PIO/JUDL/RTI/2022,dt.26-9-2022/issued by SPIO (Judicial) APHC. Ex.D.2: Xerox copy of Letter to Deputy Registrar cum Drawing Officer, Hon'ble APHC,dt.2-3-2023, Ex.D.3: Certificate issued by Deputy Registrar cum Drawing and disbursing officer, Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi dt: 21-3-2023. Ex.D.4: Acknowledgment of request letter by the accused and addressed to the

Hon'ble Registrar (Vigilance), APHC, AMARAVATHI, dt.25-3-2023.

Ex.D.5: Certificate issued by Deputy Registrar cum Drawing and disbursing officer, Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi dt. 1-4-2023.

Sd/- Sri K.V.V.Satyanarayana,

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Gurazala.

// True Copy //

ACJ (JD), GZL

FORM No.72

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar of case tried by the Additional Civil Judge( Junior Division) Court :: Gurazala

Judgment in C.C.No.312/2019

Date of:

Date of Report ofApprehensionRelease onCommence-Closure ofSentence or Offenceremand/41-A complainantof accusedbailment of trialtrialorder Cr.P.C Notice 23-02-201928-03-2019- -- -25-05-202204-09-202327-08-2024

Between:-

Andugula Ashok Kumar, S/o.Saiman, Age 45 Years, R/o.Gurazala Village and Mandal, Guntur District . . . Complainant

AND

Gidutoori Srinivasa Rao, S/o.Babu Rao, Age 43 Years, Copyist in Work review Section, First Floor in High Court, Nalapadu, Amaravathi, Guntur District . . . Accused

Crime Number- -

OffenceUnder Sec.138 of N.I Act

Plea of AccusedNot guilty

Found guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.138 of Finding of the Court N.I Act

Reasons for delay- - - Judgment: In the result the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Accordingly, the accused is convicted for the same under Sec.255(2) and (3) Cr.P.C.

Sentence: Accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.11,00,000/- out of which the total amount is ordered to be given to the complainant towards compensation under section 357 of Cr.P.C, within one month from the date of this judgment, in case of default, accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Accused is informed of his right to prefer appeal on this judgment.

Sd/- Sri K.V.V.Satyanarayana,

ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION),GURAZALA.

Copy submitted to : 1)The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-Cum-Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur.

Note:

01. The accused has not paid the total fine amount of Rs.11,00,000/- today.

02. As per the orders in Crl.M.P.No.1199/2024, dt.27-08-2024, the accused is released on interim bail till 26-09-2024 on his execution of personal bond for

Rs.10,000/- with two sureties for a like sum each, hence accused is released.

// True Copy //

ACJ (JD), GZL

1 APGU0C0001852016

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR

DIVISION) :: GURAZALA

Present :: S RI K.V.V.S ATYANARAYANA ,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) : Gurazala.

Tuesday, this the 5th day of May, 2026

O.S.No.178/2016

Between :

1. Bandla Saidamma, W/o.Kistaiah, Hindu by Caste, Aged 65 Years, Cultivation, R/o.Tumrukota Village, Rentachintala Mandal, Guntur District. (Died)

2. Rayapati Subbamma, W/o.Pedda Venkateswarlu, Hindu by Caste, Aged 50 Years, Cultivation, R/o.Sivalingapuram Village, H/o.Mutukuru Village, Veldurthy Mandal, Palnadu District. . . .Plaintiffs

3. Rayapati Padma, W/o.Srinivasa Rao, Hindu by Caste, Aged 48 Years, Business, R/o.Tenali Town and Mandal, Guntur District.

(Plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 were added as legal representatives of the deceased/plaintiff No.1 as per the Orders, dated 29-10-2024 in I.A.No.449/2023)

And

1. Velpula Samsonu, S/o.Venkaiah, Hindu by Caste, Aged 44 Years, Cultivation, R/o.Rentala Village, Rentachintala Mandal, Guntur District.

2. Velpula Ravi, S/o.Samsonu, Hindu by Caste, Aged 25 Years, Cultivation, R/o.Rentala Village, Rentachintala Mandal, Guntur District.

3. Velpula Santhosh, S/o.Samsonu, Hindu by Caste, . . .Defendants Aged 23 Years, Cultivation, R/o.Rentala Village, Rentachintala Mandal, Guntur District.

4. Velpula China Yesu, S/o.Venkaiah, Hindu by Caste, Aged 47 Years, Cultivation, R/o.Rentala Village, Rentachintala Mandal, Guntur District.

2

5. Velpula Pedda Prasad, S/o.Venkaiah, Hindu by Caste,Aged60Years,Cultivation, R/o.Samadanampeta Village, Gurazala Mandal, Guntur District.

6. Velpula China Prasad, S/o.Venkaiah, Hindu by Caste, Aged 40 Years, Cultivation, R/o.Tumurukota Village, Rentachintala Mandal, Guntur District.

This suit is coming up for final hearing before me on 10-04-2026 in the presence of Sri K.V.Nagarjuna, Advocate for the Plaintiffs and the Defendant Nos.1 to 6 having remained ex-parte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following :-

J U D G M E N T

01.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for the relief of Permanent Injunction restraining the defendant, his men, agents and servants from ever interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and for costs.

02.The brief averments of the Plaint and neat copy of Plaint are as follows : - The plaint schedule property admeasuring Ac.1-20 cents in D.No.715/1 of Tumrukota village originally belonged to deceased 1st plaintiff as she purchased the same from (1) Velpula Venkaiah, S/o Naraiah, (2)Velpula Simonu, S/o Bitchalu, (3) Velpula Venkaiah, S/o Peda Yallamanda, and (4) Velpula Yallamanda, under a possessory agreement of sale dated 20-10-1965 for a consideration of Rs.2,800/- and on receiving the entire sale consideration, the vendors executed the agreement and delivered possession to the plaintiff on the same day. Since then, the plaintiff has been in continuous, peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property, cultivating it and paying land revenue. Her possession has also been recognized by the revenue authorities, who issued pattadar passbook and title deed in her favour. It is further averred that the defendants 1 to 6, being relatives of the vendors, are aware of the said transaction. However, recently they have been making attempts to dispossess the plaintiff by creating false documents and interfering with her possession and threatened and obstructed her agricultural activities. The plaintiff got issued a legal notice dated 22-05-2016 calling upon them not to interfere, but the defendants gave false replies and continued their interference and hence the plaintiff apprehends forcible dispossession at any time and so she is approached the Court, seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, as the defendants have no right or interest therein. During pendency of the suit, the sole plaintiff died intestate and plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3 were impleaded as her legal heirs as per the orders Dt. 29-10-2024, in I.A.No. 449/2023.

3

03.After inspection, the suit was registered and summons was issued. The same was successfully served on Defendants Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5. As the defendants Nos. 2 and 5 did not appear before the Court even on receiving summons, they were set ex-parte on 1-09-2016. Fresh summons were ordered to defendants Nos. 3 and 6, but the plaintiff did not pay the process, leading to dismissal of the suit against them. Sri. K. Adinarayana, Advocate appeared on behalf of defendants Nos. 1 and 4 and filed the written statement, specifically denying the plaint averment and contended that the plaint schedule property is ancestral property originally belonging to Velpula Peda Yalamanda and Velpula China Yalamanda, who were brothers and sons of Velpula Venkaiah @ Venkadu. After the death of China Yalamanda without issues, the property devolved upon his brother Peda Yalamanda’s branch. Accordingly, Velpula Venkaiah, the father of defendants 1 and 4 to 6, succeeded to the property as legal heir and enjoyed the same during his lifetime. After his demise, defendants 1 and 4 to 6 continued in possession and enjoyment. It is further stated that the family later shifted to Rentala village, and taking advantage of their absence from Tumrukota village, the plaintiff unlawfully encroached upon the suit schedule property. It is further contended that the suit schedule property, locally known as “Yalamanda Kunta” or “Madigolla Kunta,” along with adjacent lands in Survey Nos. 715 and 716 to an extent of Ac.4-93 cents, belongs to their family and was used for public and agricultural purposes an that their ancestors Velpula Venkaiah, Velpula Simonu, Velpula Venkaiah (S/o Peda Yalamanda), and Velpula Yalamanda, never executed any agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff or any other person at any point of time. It is furthermore contended that, the alleged possessory agreement of sale dated 20-10-1965 is a false, fabricated, and forged document brought into existence solely to grab their ancestral property and also allege that the plaintiff had earlier fabricated another agreement of sale dated 04-04-1971 in respect of adjacent property, which indicates a pattern of creating false documents. The plaintiff is therefore put to strict proof of the alleged agreement and had the document been genuine, the plaintiff would have sought specific performance and obtained a registered sale deed from the legal heirs of the alleged vendors. It is furthermore contended that, the plaintiff has no manner of right, title, or interest over the suit schedule property and that she has manipulated revenue authorities to obtain pattadar passbooks, title deeds, and land revenue receipts without any lawful entitlement. All such documents are created for the purpose of filing the present suit. They got issued a reply notice dated 24-06-2016 denying the allegations made in the plaintiff’s legal notice dated 22-05-2016. The bare suit for permanent injunction against the true owners is not maintainable in law without seeking the relief of declaration of title. The plaintiff is a trespasser who illegally occupied the property and that the suit is liable to be dismissed.

4

04.Based upon the clashing pleadings of both the parties and on examining the suit document, this Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction against the defendant Nos. 1 to 6 as prayed for?

3. To what relief?

05.During the course of trial, the plaintiff died and the legal representatives of deceased plaintiff were permitted to continue the suit, by allowing the petition in I.A.No. 449/2020. In order to suit the fresh pleadings in neat copy of plaint, the issues were recasted as follows :-

1. Whether the deceased 1 st plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing the suit and whether plaintiffs 2 and 3 are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property after the death of 1 st plaintiff as her legal representatives?

2. Whether the plaintiffs 2 and 3, being the legal representatives of deceased 1 st plaintiff, are entitled for permanent injunction against the defendants no. 1 to 6, has prayed for?

3. To what relief?

06.Both the parties have acknowledged the rival pleadings of each other and plaintiff adduced evidence in support of his case. The defendant neither cross-examined the plaintiff’s witnesses nor adduced evidence in support of his case.

07.At the trial, the 1st plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked Exhibit A1 - Original Pattadar Passbook, Exhibit A2 - Original Title Deed, Exhibit A3 - Cist Receipts 7 in number, Exhibit A4 - Certified Copy of Form 1B Abstract, dated 06.07.2016 issued by the Tahsildar, Rentachintala Mandal through Mee-seva, Exhibit A5 - Certified Copy of Adangal for the FASLI 1426 issued by the Tasildar, Rentachintala Mandal through Mee-eseva,

dated 06.07.2016; Exhibit A6 - Office Copy of Legal Notice, dated

22.05.2016 with 6 postal receipts; Exhibit A7 - Postal Acknowledgments 5 in number; Exhibit A8 - Returned Postal Cover of defendant No.6 and Exhibit A9 - Reply Notice, dated 24.06.2016, in support of her case. Despite giving ample opportunity, passing conditional orders and even on imposing costs, the defendants Nos. 1 and 4 did not appear and failed to cross-examine PW1, consequently her corss-examination by defendants Nos.1 and 4 is treated as nil. Subsequently, the learned counsel for the defendant nos. 1 and 4 filed memo submitting that parties have not been appearing before him and he did not receive any instructions to proceed with the suit and hence he is giving up vakalat on behalf of defendant Nos.1 and 4. On that this court called the defendants Nos.1 and 4, but, they failed to appear. Consequently they were also set ex parte. Then one Kunkalakuntla Hanumaiah, Potla Naga Srinivasa Rao, 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs were examines as Pws.2 to 5.

5

08.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff. Perused the entire material on record and the matter was then posted for judgment.

Re-casted Issue No. 1 : - “Whether the deceased 1 st plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing the suit and whether plaintiffs 2 and 3 are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property after the death of 1 st plaintiff as her legal representatives?”

09.P.W.1 reiterated all the averments of plaint, in his chief examination affidavit. He produced Exs.A.1 to A9.

10.P.W.1 categorically deposed that, she acquired the suit schedule properties under an unregistered agreement of sale back in the year 1965 and since then she has been in possession and enjoyment of the same as absolute owner without obstruction from anyone and recognizing her right, the revenue authorities issued Exs. A1 and A2 and also mutated her name in all concerned revenue records. Defendants had been causing obstruction to her possession claiming themselves to be the heirs of her fourth vendor and have been proclaiming that they will dispossess her from the suit schedule property. Though, the defendants Nos.1 and 4 filed written statement and denied the execution of said agreement of sale in 1965, they did not come come forward and contest the suit. In view of the memo filed by the counsel for defendants Nos. 1 and 4, they were set ex-parte. Thus the evidence of PW 1 remained unchallenged.

11.PWs 2 and 3 were examined and they deposed through their chief- examination affidavit that, deceased 1st plaintiff is the owner of suit schedule property and she was in possession and enjoyment of the same during her life and after her death, her daughters i.e., 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs have been in possession of the same. Defendants have no right over the same, but they made efforts to disturb the possession and enjoyment of deceased 1st plaintiff.

12.Further, the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs examined themselves as PWs 4 and 5, by reproducing the contents of Neat Copy of Plaint in their chief-examination affidavits and no documents are marked on their behalf, with an addition that after the death of 1st plaintiff they took the possession of the suit schedule property and have been cultivating the same. The cross-examination of PWs.2 to 5 is recorded as nil, as defendants 1, 2, 4 and 6 remained ex parte.

13.Though, the defendants did not contest the case, it is the duty of the court to evaluate the evidence on record and to see whether the plaintiff is entitled to the extra-ordinary equitable relief of Permanent Injunction. It is the duty of plaintiff to establish his claim by adducing cogent evidence. Regarding the title of plaintiff over the suit schedule property, the deceased 1st plaintiff said to have got the schedule properties under an unregistered 6 agreement of sale, and it implies that, she has got no valid title over the same to pass it on to others. Thus, the title of decease 1st plaintiff over the suit schedule properties is under question.

14.However, in a suit for injunction, plaintiff need to prove possession over the schedule property and the law has emerged over time and the position as on date is that person in settled possession, even in trespasser is entitled to injunction simpliciter. It was observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rame Gowda (D) By Lrs vs M. Varadappa Naidu (D) By Lrs. & Anr reported in AIR 2004 SC 4609 that: “…...If the trespasser is in settled possession of the property belonging to the rightful owner, the rightful owner shall have to take recourse to law; he cannot take the law in his own hands and evict the trespasser or interfere with his possession. The law will come to the aid of a person in peaceful and settled possession by injuncting even a rightful owner from using force or taking law in his own hands, and also by restoring him in possession even from the rightful owner (of course subject to the law of limitation), if the latter has dispossessed the prior possessor by use of force……” It is further observed giving the sense of settle possession as follows: “…...The 'settled possession' must be (i) effective, (ii) undisturbed, and

(iii) to the knowledge of the owner or without any attempt at concealment by the trespasser. The phrase 'settled possession' does not carry any special charm or magic in it; nor is it a ritualistic formula which can be confined in a strait-jacket. An occupation of the property by a person as an agent or a servant acting at the instance of the owner will not amount to actual physical possession……” 15.In the present case, the deceased 1st plaintiff has convincingly established her lawful possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit by relying upon Exs. A1 to A5. Although the unregistered possessory agreement of sale dated 20-10-1965 has been filed and not marked, the other documentary evidence sufficiently substantiates her possession. It is true that Ex. A3 does not mention the survey number of the land in respect of which tax was paid; however, the consistent case of the plaintiffs that the said receipt pertains to the suit schedule property has remained unchallenged. In the absence of any contest, this Court finds no reason to disbelieve the said plea and is inclined to accept the same.

16.The evidence on record clearly demonstrates that the deceased 1st plaintiff was in continuous, peaceful, and undisturbed possession of the suit schedule property for several decades. The testimony of PWs.2 and 3 corroborates that she remained in possession for at least 40 years prior to the dispute. There is no material whatsoever to discredit or rebut this consistent evidence. Accordingly, this Court unhesitatingly holds that the deceased 1st plaintiff was in settled and lawful possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit. Further, upon her demise, such possession lawfully devolved upon plaintiffs 2 and 3, being her legal heirs, 7 who have continued in possession and enjoyment of the property. This aspect also remains uncontroverted.

17.As regards the discrepancy in the extent of land, Exs. A1, A2, A4, and A5 disclose that an extent of Ac.1.53 cents in Sy. No. 715/1 of Tumrukota Village stands in the name of the deceased 1st plaintiff, whereas the present suit is confined to Ac.1.20 cents out of the said extent. This, does not undermines the plaintiffs’ case, as they have consciously restricted their claim and are not seeking any excess land. In view of the above, this Court conclusively finds that the suit schedule property was in the possession of the deceased 1st plaintiff, and subsequent to her death, plaintiffs 2 and 3 have succeeded to and continue in possession and enjoyment of the same.

Re-casted issue No. 2:- Whether the plaintiffs 2 and 3, being the legal

representatives of deceased 1 st plaintiff, are entitled for permanent

injunction against the defendants no. 1 to 6, has prayed for? 18.Issue No.1 is answered in favour of the plaintiffs. To establish obstruction and interference with their possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, the plaintiffs have relied upon the oral evidence of the deceased 1st plaintiff and PWs.2 to 5. The said evidence has remained unchallenged and is sufficient to prove the alleged interference. Moreover, defendants Nos.1 and 4, by contesting the suit and asserting rights over the suit schedule property, have clearly demonstrated their interest therein. This, in turn, lends credence to the plaintiffs’ allegation of interference.

19.In these circumstances, this Court is satisfied that the plaintiffs have successfully established their case and are entitled to the equitable relief of perpetual injunction. However, in view of the dismissal of the suit against defendants Nos.3 and 6, this issue is answered in favour of plaintiffs Nos.2 and 3 and against defendants Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5.

Re-casted i ssue No. 3 : - To what relief? 20.In the result, the suit is partly decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiffs Nos.2 and 3 and against defendants Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 and the defendants Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5, their men and agents are hereby permanently enjoined from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, by the plaintiffs Nos.2 and 3, by granting perpetual injunction. The suit is dismissed against defendants Nos.3 and 6.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 5th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- K.V.V. Satyanarayana.

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Gurazala.

8

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For the Plaintiffs :- P.W.1 :-Smt. Bandla Saidamma.

P.W.2 :-Sri Kunkalakuntla Hanumaiah.

P.W.3 :-Potla Naga Srinivasa Rao.

P.W.4 :-Smt. Rayapati Subbamma.

P.W.5 :-Smt. Rayapati Padma.

For the Defendants :- - N O N E -

EXHIBITS MARKED

For the Plaintiffs :- Ex.A-1 :- Original Pattadar Passbook. Ex.A-2 :- Original Title Deed. Ex.A-3 :- Cist Receipts 7 in number. Ex.A-4 :- Certified Copy of Form 1B Abstract, dated 06.07.2016 issued by the Tahsildar, Rentachintala Mandal through Mee-seva. Ex.A-5 :- Certified Copy of Adangal for the FASLI 1426 issued by the Tasildar, Rentachintala Mandal through Mee-eseva, dated 06.07.2016. Ex.A-6 :- Office Copy of Legal Notice, dated 22.05.2016 with 6 postal receipts. Ex.A-7 :- Postal Acknowledgments 5 in number. Ex.A-8 :- Returned Postal Cover of defendant No.6. Ex.A-9 :- Reply Notice, dated 24.06.2016.

For the Defendants :- - N I L -.

Sd/- K.V.V. Satyanarayana.

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Gurazala.

9

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR

DIVISION) :: GURAZALA

Present :: S RI K.V.V.S ATYANARAYANA ,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) : Gurazala.

Thursday, this the 7th day of May, 2026

O.S.No.178/2016

Between :

1. Bandla Saidamma, W/o.Kistaiah, Hindu by Caste, Aged 65 Years, Cultivation, R/o.Tumrukota Village, Rentachintala Mandal, Guntur District. (Died)

2. Rayapati Subbamma, W/o.Pedda Venkateswarlu, Hindu by Caste, Aged 50 Years, Cultivation, R/o.Sivalingapuram Village, H/o.Mutukuru Village, Veldurthy Mandal, Palnadu District. . . .Plaintiffs

3. Rayapati Padma, W/o.Srinivasa Rao, Hindu by Caste, Aged 48 Years, Business, R/o.Tenali Town and Mandal, Guntur District.

(Plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 were added as legal representatives of the deceased/plaintiff No.1 as per the Orders, dated 29-10-2024 in I.A.No.449/2023)

And

1. Velpula Samsonu, S/o.Venkaiah, Hindu by Caste, Aged 44 Years, Cultivation, R/o.Rentala Village, Rentachintala Mandal, Guntur District.

2. Velpula Ravi, S/o.Samsonu, Hindu by Caste, Aged 25 Years, Cultivation, R/o.Rentala Village, Rentachintala Mandal, Guntur District.

3. Velpula Santhosh, S/o.Samsonu, Hindu by Caste, Aged 23 Years, Cultivation, R/o.Rentala Village, Rentachintala Mandal, Guntur District. . . .Defendants

4. Velpula China Yesu, S/o.Venkaiah, Hindu by Caste, Aged 47 Years, Cultivation, R/o.Rentala Village, Rentachintala Mandal, Guntur District.

5. Velpula Pedda Prasad, S/o.Venkaiah, Hindu by Caste,Aged60Years,Cultivation, R/o.Samadanampeta Village, Gurazala Mandal, Guntur District.

6. Velpula China Prasad, S/o.Venkaiah, Hindu by Caste, Aged 40 Years, Cultivation, R/o.Tumurukota Village, Rentachintala Mandal, Guntur District.

10 This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for the relief of Permanent Injunction restraining the defendant, his men, agents and servants from ever interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and for costs.

Plaint presented on: 26-07-2016. Plaint filed on: 26-07-2016.

CAUSE OF ACTION :- Cause of action for the suit arose about two months, when the defendants are making hectic efforts to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and on 22-05-2016 when the plaintiff got issued legal notice to the defendants for not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff on 24-06-2016 when the defendants replied with false allegations and about 2 days back when the defendants high handedly enter into the suit schedule land and tried to dispossess her from the suit schedule land and at Tumrukota Village of Rentachintala Mandal where the suit schedule land is situated is within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble court

PARTICULARS OF CLAIM :- This being a suit for permanent injunction, the plaintiffs’ notional value of the suit schedule property is Rs.10,000/-; on which, a Court Fee of Rs.786/- was paid under section 26 (c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V. Act 1956. Value for the purpose of jurisdiction is the same as above i.e. Rs.10,000/-.

This suit is coming up for final hearing before me on 10-04-2026 in the presence of Sri K.V.Nagarjuna, Advocate for the Plaintiffs and the Defendant Nos.1 to 6 having remained ex-parte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth order and decree as follows :-

1. That the suit be and the same is hereby partly decreed in favour of plaintiff Nos.2 & 3 and against the defendant Nos.1, 2, 4 & 6;

2. That the defendant Nos.1, 2, 4 & 6, their men and agents are hereby permanently enjoined from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, by the plaintiff Nos.2 & 3, by granting perpetual injunction;

3. That the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed against the defendant Nos.3 & 6; and

4. That the defendants do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,988/- towards costs of the suit and do bear their own costs of Rs.Nil. (No Costs Memo and Fee Certificate is filed by the defendants) (Copy of Plaint schedule is attached to the Decree)

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this the 7th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- K.V.V. Satyanarayana.

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

GURAZALA.

11

T A B L E OF C O S T S

For Plaintiffs For Defendants Stamp on VakalatRs. 2-00 Stamp on PlaintRs. 786-00 C.M. & F.C. not filed Advocate’s FeeRs.1,000-00(Ex-parte) ProcessRs. 200-00 Total Costs allowed at : Rs.1,988-00 - N I L -

Sd/- K.V.V. Satyanarayana.

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

GURAZALA.

N.B :- The parties should apply as soon as possible for return of all the exhibits, which they may wish to preserve, as the record will be destroyed after three years from the date of decree or judgment.

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

GURAZALA

PRESENT Sri K.V.V. SATYANARAYANA,

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurazala.

Tuesday, this the 27th day of August, 2024.

CC No. 741/2018

Between: -

Paturi Venkata Rami Reddy, S/o Subba Reedy,Business, Age 40 Years, R/o Karempudi Village and Mandal, Guntur … Complainant

And: -

Anugolu Seetaramaiah, S/o Anjaneyulu, M.N.O., Children O.P., Ward- 27(GGH), Gutur Government Hospital, Guntur… Accused

This case is coming before me on 20-08-2024 for final hearing in the presence of Sri K. Hari Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the Complainant and of Sri B.N.V.Hanumantha Rao, Learned Advocate for the Accused and on hearing both the sides, this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This is private a complaint filed by the complainant against the accused for the offence under sections 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act).

2. The contents of the complaint in brief are that:

The accused had borrowed an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- form the complainant on 24-05-2015 for his family expenses and executed a promissory note in his favour, unconditionally undertaking to repay the same together with interest @ 24% per annum in the presence of Amareswarapu Veeranjaneyulu and A. Jagannadha Reddy as attestors and one Gunda Lakshmi Narayana as scribe, and subsequently borrowed another sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- from the complainant for his family expenses by way of hand loan on 15-01-2017 in the presence of Amareswarapu Veeranjaneyulu and Shake Shafi, but failed to repay the same despite multiple requests made by the complainant and on 12-08- 2018, the accused had issued a cheque bearing No. 049365 for Rs.

8,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Government General Hospital Branch, Guntur, in favour of the complainant, towards part satisfaction of the total debt due i.e., Rs. 9,00,000/-. The said cheque was presented by the complainant on 14-08-2018 for collection, through his banker and the same was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds to the credit of the accused’s bank account. Subsequently, the complainant got issued a statutory legal notice to the accused, through his counsel, on 16-08-2018 and the same was returned unserved with endorsement “unclaimed, Dt. 23-08-2018” and that the complainant, after waiting for the statutory period of 15 days, filed this complaint on 19-09-2018, with in the limitation prescribed under section 142 of NI Act, 1881.

3. After confirming the sworn affidavit, the case on taken cognizance of against the accused and summons were issued. On appearance of accused, copies were furnished to him and was examined under section 251 Cr.P.C by explaining the substance of accusation against him under section 138 NI Act, to which he denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. During trial, the complainant examined himself as P.W 1 and got Ex. P1 to P6 Viz., Original Promissory Note of Rs.3,00,000/- dated 24-05-2015 executed by the accused in favour of the complainant; Cheque bearing No.049365 for Rs.8,00,000/-, dated 12-08-2018, drawn by the accused in favour of the complainant; Cheque return memo, dated: 14-08-2018 of State Bank of India, Karempudi; Office Copy of legal notice, dated: 16-08- 2018; Postal receipt, dated: 16-08-2018 and Un-Served (Un-claimed) registered legal notice, dated:23-08-2018, marked in his favour and got examined on Gunda Lakshmi Narayana, who is the scribe of Ex. P1 as P.W 2 and prosecution evidence is closed. This court then examined the accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C for the incriminating circumstance appearing against him in the prosecution evidence to which he denied and reported that he has evidence in his defence. But later memo was filed stating that he has no evidence to adduce and hence the defence evidence is closed.

5. Now, the points for determination are:

1. Whether there exists a legally enforceable debt between the complainant and the accused?

2. Whether Ex. P2 Cheque was issued by the accused for discharge of a legally enforceable debt?

3. If so, Whether the statutory notice issued by the

complainant is sufficient to attract the liability under section 138 NI

Act?

4. If point 1 is proved, Whether the accused rebutted the

presumptions under the provisions of Negotiable Instruments Act,

1881?

5. Whether the complainant proved the guilt of the accused

beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable U/s 138 and

142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881?

6. Heard the counsels for the complainant and the accused.

7. The counsel for the complainant submitted that, the cheque was issued in discharge of the part of legally enforceable debt and that the notice issued was returned with endorsement “unclaimed” and the same amounts to deemed service as per section 27 of the General Clauses Act and the material alteration as raised by the accused counsel has no relevancy to the case, as the complainant filed this case basing on the endorsement Dt. 23-08-2018 and not on the endorsement Dt. 21-08-2018 on Ex.- P6 on the first hand and that even though it is altered, the complainant had nothing to do with it as the same was done by postal authorities. He further argued that the oral evidence is adduced to prove the hand loan Dt. 15-01-2017.

8. The counsel for the accused submitted his arguments stating that the debt under Ex. P1 is time barred by the date of issuance of the Ex. P2 cheque and there is not any documentary proof submitted before this court by the complainant to establish his claim of hand loan Dt. 15-01-2017 and that there is no endorsement made on Ex. P2, that the cheque was issue towards part satisfaction of the debt due to him, which is mandatory in view of section 56 of NI Act and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Dashrathbahi Trikambhai Patel Vs. Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel and

another. He further contended that the endorsement of unclaimed cannot be treated as unclaimed and there is material alteration in Ex. P6, where in the date of 20-8-2012 was altered to 21-08-2018 and that the same was admitted by the complainant in his cross examination.

Point No. 1:

Whether there exists a legally enforceable debt between the

complainant and the accused?

9. When the material on record is examined to answer the first point, it is clear that Ex. P1 promissory note was executed by the accused on 24-05- 2015 and the Ex. P2 cheque was issued on 12-08-2018. Ex. P1 is demand promissory note and the life of the said note is three years from the date of its executions as per Article 35 of the schedule in Limitation Act, 1963. The same was also admitted by the complainant in his cross examination. To establish the debt under Ex. P1 the complainant also examined P.W. 2, who is the scribe of Ex. P1 and he deposed that he scribed the said promissory note and that the accused executed the promissory note in the presence of himself and the attestors, Viz., Amareswarapu Veeranjaneyulu and A. Jagannadha Reddy and the accused received the consideration under the said promissory note. Further to prove the hand loan Dt. 15-01- 2017, the complainant did not produce any documentary evidence, it is the case of complainant that the said loan was given in the presence of one Amareswarapu Veeranjaneyulu and Shake Shafi, but none of them were examined by him to prove the same. Further, it was admitted by the complainant in his cross examination that he does not have direct acquaintance with the accused and that he knew the accused thorough his friend and again stated that he did not issue any legal notice demanding the repayment of said amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- and that the said Amareswarapu Veeranjaneyulu and Shake Shafi are his friends and again added that they are his friends through the accuse. He further admitted that he does not have acquaintance with the accused in any aspect. The interesting this to be noted here and rightly contended by the defence counsel is that no prudent man would lend an amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- to a person with whom he does not have acquaintance as a hand loan. On as logical analysis of this fact, it is fact that, the initial loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- was given by obtaining a promissory note, when the amount under the said note is still due, the act of lending further debt, that too without execution any document evidencing the same, is contrary to ordinary human conduct, and this made this court to take adverse inference under section 114 of Indian Evidence Act, against the lending of hand loan. However, it is nowhere alleged by the accused that he did not execute Ex. P1 promissory note and that the signature on Ex. P1 is not of his. Only suggestion posed by the accused in this respect during cross examination of PW 1 is that the signatures on Ex. P1 and Ex. P2 are different, and the same was denied by PW 1. It is clear that the debt under Ex. P1 is time barred, and thus seized to be a legally enforceable debt and a well-established principle is that no cheque issued in discharge of a time barred debt attracts offence under section 138 NI Act. The same was held but he Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Girdhari Lal Rathi vs P.T.V. Ramanujachari And Anr. on 20 January, 1997. It was held that “7. The alleged loan was advanced in the year 1985 and the cheque was issued in the year 1990. By the time the cheque was issued, the debt appears to have been barred by limitation because no acknowledgment is alleged to have been obtained by the appellant from the first respondent- accused before expiry of three years from the date of loan. Thus, it is crystal clear that the debt was not legally enforceable at the time of issuance of the cheque and, therefore, vide Explanation to section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which reads as under: "Explanation. - Until the debt is legally recoverable the drawer of the cheque cannot be fastened with the liability under section 138 of the Act."

The learned counsel for the complainant did not submit anything to suggest that the debt under Ex. P1 is not time barres. Only submission through him was that the hand loan of Rs. 6,00,000/- Dt. 15-01-2017 was a continuation to the debt under Ex. P1, and hence the loan under Ex. P1 is alive, but the same finds no strength as only things that extend the life of a debt or other liability are either an acknowledgement under section 18 or a part payment under section 19 of the Limitation Act, but not a further loan. This court also considered the probability of the cheque being issued towards discharge of hand loan Dt. 15-01- 2017, considering for instance the same was advanced, but even that cannot stand as it is the case of prosecution that the said hand loan was issued without any agreement as to interest thereon, and Ex. P2 cheque was drawn for Rs.

8,00,000/-. Hence it can no way be considered to be issued in discharge of the hand loan Dt. 15-01-2017. Form the above discussion, it could safely be concluded that there is no legally enforceable debt existing, between the complainant and the accused. Hence the first point is answered in favour of the accused and against the complainant.

Further, the counsel for the complainant submitted a citation reported in AIR 2006 Cri. L.J 1, a decision delivered by Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, where in it was held that, “40. The mere loss of the demand promissory note or its non-production by itself would not be sufficient to hold that there was no legally enforceable debt. There are no other probable circumstances placed by the accused in the process of discharge of his burden. The failure of the accused in giving reply to the legal notice issued by P.W. I is one of the strong circumstances to draw an inference that the accused borrowed the amount from P.W. 1 and the cheque was issued towards part payment of the legally enforceable debt.” And it was also held that “42. ……… when once the signatures on the demand promissory by the accused; cheque are not disputed the burden is on the accused to establish under what circum- stances he signed all those documents and in what connection he gave those documents and how those documents came to the possession of P.W. 1 and what was the necessity for P.W. 1 to file the present case when there was no borrowing of money from P.W. 1. Mere non-filing of the suit by itself is not a, circumstance leading to a conclusion that there was no legally enforceable debt. The evidence of P.W. 4 was that he was the scribe of the promissory note……….” The citation above and the observations made by the Hon’ble High Court are not relevant to the case on hand, as the above observations were made under different set of facts and circumstance. The counsel for the complainant relied on this citation to counter the admission by the complainant in his cross examination, that he did not file any civil suit for recovery of the amount due under Ex. P1, but the same is not relevant as the said promissory note is a time-barred one.

Points No. 2 to 4:

10.As the first point was answered in detail, other points could be answered all together at once. As there is no legally enforceable debt, the question of Ex. P2 cheque, being issued towards discharge of a legally enforceable debt, does not arise. Moving on to the next point, i.e., issuance of legal notice, it is not necessary, to answer the same in detail, as there is no cause of action for the complainant to initiate the proceedings on hand, however as both the counsels submitted a detailed arguments on this point, it is the duty of this court to answer the same. Firstly, it is the case of prosecution that the notice was issued and returned unserved with endorsement, unclaimed Dt. 23-08-2018, and the same is valid as per section 27 of General Clauses Act. But the counsel for defence submitted that there is material alteration to Dt. 21-08-2018, which was altered to 21 from 20. But the complainant’s counsel submitted that the date of 21-08- 2018 has nothing to do with the case on hand as the complainant has taken 23-08-2018 as the base for his complaint. It was further defended by defence, that as per the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh “12. In Sridhar M.A. v. Metalloy N.Steel Corpn., the Apex Court held that notice should not be deemed to have been served as a matter of course and deemed service is to be accepted in the facts of each case. In the instant case, the case of the respondent- accused was that he was not served with statutory notice. But, the case of complainant was that he sent the statutory notice to the respondent by registered post and also through certificate of posting and the notice sent by registered post was returned unserved with the endorsement 'addressee left'. No evidence is placed before the Court that the notice sent by certificate of posting was, in fact, served on the respondent. In these circumstances, the respondent- accused is entitled to benefit of doubt as to whether such service of notice, in fact, had been effected on him. Therefore, I am of the opinion that unless the notice issued by the complainant is served on the respondent-accused as required under Section 138(b) read with clause (c) thereof, the complaint is not maintainable and the accused cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Act.”

This decision is not relevant to the case on hand as the observation was made in respect of endorsement of “Addressee left” and with respect to an unclaimed notice. Not claiming a notice is similar to refusal and the same is a deemed service. Thus, the service of statutory notice is sufficient according to my view. As the first point is answered negative, the 4th point i.e., rebuttal of presumption by accused does not arise, as there is no presumption drawn in favour of the complainant under section 139 of NI Act.

Point No. 5:

11.The general principle of in criminal jurisprudence is that the prosecution must prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt. In the cases under 138 NI Act, the prosecution could have the support of presumptions under sections 118 and 139 of the Act. However, in order to invoke said presumptions, the complainant shall initially establish that the cheque under question was issued towards, discharge of legally enforceable debt or liability. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.Venugopal vs Madan.P.Sarathi , held that “Indisputably, in view of the decisions of this Court in Krishna Janardhan Bhat (supra), the initial burden was on the complainant. The presumption raised in favour of the holder of the cheque must be kept confined to the matters covered thereby. The presumption raised does not extend to the extent that the cheque was issued for the discharge of any debt or liability which is required to be proved by the complainant. In a case of this nature, however, it is essentially a question of fact.” In the case on hand the complainant failed to establish existence of legally enforceable debt, and failed to discharge his initial liability, and hence no presumption could be drawn in his favour and as he failed to establish his case on the most important aspect of enforceability of debt, this point too is answered against the complainant and in favour of the accused. Thus, this court concludes that the complainant failed to establish the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt and he is entitled to acquittal.

In the result, the accused is not found guilty for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act and he is hereby acquitted under section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment under 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Stenographer, Grade -III, typed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me on this the 27th day of August 2024 in open court.

Sd/-Sri.K.V.V.Satyanarayana

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Gurazala.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW.1- Pathuri Venkata Rami Reddy DW.1- Nil

PW.2- Gunda Lakshmi Narayana

Documents Marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1- Promissory Note of Rs.3.00.000/-, dated 24-05-2015 in favour of the complainant.

Ex.P2- Cheque bearing No.049365 for Rs.8,00,000/-, dated 12-08-2018 issued by the accused in favour of the complainant.

Ex.P3- Cheque return memo, dated: 14-08-2018 of State Bank of India. Karempudi.

Ex.P4- Office Copy of legal notice. dated: 16-08-2018.

Ex.P5- Postal receipt, dated: 16-08-2018.

Ex.P6- Un-Served (Un-claimed) registered legal notice, dated:23-08-2018.

For Defence:

NIL

Sd/-Sri.K.V.V.Satyanarayana

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Gurazala.

//True Copy//

ACJ(J.D), GZL

FORM No.72

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of Guntur Calendar of case tried by the Additional Civil Judge( Junior Division) Court :: Gurazala

Judgment in C.C.No.741/2018

Date of:

Date of ApprehenCommencSentence Report ofremand/41ReleaseClosure of Offencesion ofe-ment ofor complainant-A Cr.P.Con bailtrial accusedtrialorder Notice 12-08-12-07-31-01- 16-08-2018- -- - 27-08-2024 201820222023 Between:-

Paturi Venkata Rami Reddy, S/o Subba . . . Complainant Reedy,Business, Age 40 Years, R/o Karempudi Village and Mandal, Guntur

AND

Anugolu Seetaramaiah, S/o Anjaneyulu, M.N.O., Children O.P., Ward-27(GGH), Gutur Government Hospital, Guntur . . . Accused

Crime Number- -

OffenceUnder Sec.138 of NI Act

Plea of AccusedNot guilty

Finding of the CourtFound not guilty

Due to non commencement of trial by the complainant Reasons for delay effectively Judgment: In the result, the accused is not found guilty for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act and he is hereby acquitted under section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment under 437-A of Cr.P.C.

ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION),

GURAZALA.

Copy submitted to : 1)The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-Cum-Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur.

1

APGU0C0006742025

FORM No.72

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of Guntur Calendar of case tried by the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) :: Gurazala.

Judgment in Calendar Case No.547/2019.

Nature of Offence :: U/Ss.324, 506, 509 r/w.34 I.P.C.

Date of Judgment :: 06-05-2026.

Report ofApprehensionDate ofRelease onCommence-Closure ofSentence or Offence on complainantof accusedremandbailment of trialtrialorder Sec.41 (A) Cr.P.C notice 09-09-201909-09-2019--07-08-202427-11-202506-05-2026 was served on 12-09-2019

Explanation for the delay :: The delay is due to non-appearance of the accused and non production of witnesses in time. Hence, the delay.

Complainant :: State : The Sub-Inspector of Police, Dachepalli Police Station.

Name ofFather’sResidenc AgeReligionCallingMandal accusednamee

1. Manchi Anki Raju, S/o.Venkateswarlu, Aged 55 Years, Yadava by Caste, R/o.Gamalapadu Village, Dachepalli Mandal.

2. Manchi Sambasiva Rao, S/o.Venkateswarlu, Aged 44 Years, Yadava by Caste, R/o.Gamalapadu Village, Dachepalli Mandal.

3. Manchi Venkata Ravamma, W/o.Anki Raju, Aged 49 Years, R/o.Gamalapadu Village, Dachepalli Mandal.

4. Manchi Ramana, W/o.Sambasiva Rao, Aged 38 Years, R/o.Gamalapadu Village, Dachepalli Mandal.

PLEA OF ACCUSED :- NOT GUILTY.

FINDING OF THE COURT :- NOT FOUND GUILTY.

2

SENTENCE OR ORDER :- In the result, accused Nos.1 to 4 are not found guilty for the offences punishable under sections 324, 506 and 509 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code and they are hereby acquitted under section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bonds of accused Nos.1 to 4 shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment under Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Gurazala. Copy submitted to:-

1. The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur.

2. The Superintendent of Police, Narasaraopet.

3. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

3

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR

DIVISION) ::

GURAZALA.

Present :: Sri K.V.V. SATYANARAYANA,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurazala.

Wednesday, this the 6th day of May, 2026. C.C.No.547/2019 Between : - State : The Sub-Inspector of Police, Dachepalli. . .Complainant Police Station.

And

1. Manchi Anki Raju, S/o.Venkateswarlu, Aged 55 Years, Yadava by Caste, R/o.Gamalapadu Village, Dachepalli Mandal.

2. Manchi Sambasiva Rao, S/o.Venkateswarlu, Aged 44 Years, Yadava by Caste, R/o.Gamalapadu Village, Dachepalli Mandal.. . .Accused

3. Manchi Venkata Ravamma, W/o.Anki Raju, Aged 49 Years, R/o.Gamalapadu Village, Dachepalli Mandal.

4. Manchi Ramana, W/o.Sambasiva Rao, Aged 38 Years, R/o.Gamalapadu Village, Dachepalli Mandal.

This case is coming before me on 11-05-2026 for final hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Prosecution and Sri B.N.V.Hanumantha Rao, Learned Counsel for the Accused Nos. 1 to 4 and on hearing both the sides, this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :-

J U D G M E N T

01.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Dachepalli Police Station has filed a charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 4 in Crime No.418/2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 506 and 509 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as “I.P.C”).

02.The case of the Prosecution in brief is that :- L.W.1/Manchi Koteswaramma is the injured/informant. L.W.2/Manchi Mahesh Babu is the son and L.W.3/Manchi Rama Rao is husband of P.W.1. L.W.4/Gunjikunta Anjaneyulu is an eyewitness and neighbour of the occurrence. L.W.5/Dr.Satish is the Medical Officer, who treated P.W.1 and issued the Wound 4

Certificate. L.Ws.6 and 7/H.C-3474, S.Amma Naidu and M.Ramana are the Investigating Officers. LW-1 is a resident of Gamalapadu Village of Dachepalli Mandal and earns her livelihood by working as an agricultural labourer and that there existed longstanding land disputes between LW-1, LW-3 and the accused persons with regard to agricultural land measuring Ac.2.40 cents belonging to LW-1 and LW-3 and a case was also registered in connection with the said dispute and that the accused were threatening LW-1 and LW-3 not to cultivate the said land. It is further maintained that on 09-09-2019 at about 6:30 PM, while LW-1 was sitting on the platform in front of her house and speaking about the land dispute, accused Nos.1 and 2, who reside in the neighbouring houses, came to the spot, abused her in filthy language and questioned her for raising cries and also assaulted LW-1 with their hands. Further, A-1 allegedly caught hold of LW-1 by her hair and hit her head against the iron gate of the house, as a result of which she sustained a head injury and fell down. Thereafter, Accused Nos.3 and 4 also reached the spot, abused PW-1 in filthy language and, along with A-1 and A-2, allegedly threatened to kill P.Ws.2 and 3 with dire consequences. It is furthermore maintained that LW-4, who witnessed the incident, informed LW-2 over phone. Subsequently, LWs-2 and 3 came to the village and shifted her to the Community Health Centre, Gurazala, in an auto for treatment. At the time of the incident, PWs-2 and 3 were not present at the house or in the village. Based on the statement given by LW-1, LW-6 recorded her statement and forwarded the same on jurisdictional grounds to LW-7. LW-7 registered a case in Crime No.418/2019 of Dachepalli Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 506 and 509 read with Section 34 I.P.C. During the course of investigation, LW-7 examined LWs-1 to 4 and recorded their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. inspected the scene of offence and prepared a rough sketch. On 12-09-2019, the accused persons appeared before the Investigating Officer and were served notices under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. directing them to appear before the Court and police as and when required. LW-5, who treated LW-1, issued the wound certificate opining that the injuries sustained by LW-1 were simple in nature. After completion of investigation, PW-7 laid charge sheet against Accused Nos.1 to 4.

03.This case was taken on file against the accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offences punishable under sections 324, 506 and 509 read with section 34 IPC.

04.On appearance of accused Nos.1 to 4, copies of case documents were furnished to them in compliance of section 207 of Cr.P.C, and they were examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C. Charges are framed for the offences punishable under sections 324, 506 and 509 read with section 34 I.P.C. The contents of charge were explained to them in Telugu. Having understood the same, they denied the commission, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5

05.During the course of trial, the prosecution, in order to establish the guilt of accused, examined Manchi Koteswaramma, Manchi Rama Raju and M. Ramana (L.Ws.1, 3 and 7) as P.Ws.1 to 3 and relied on Exhibits P.1 to P.4 Viz., Report,

dated 09-09-2019; First Informatin Report in Crime No.418/2019 of Dachepalli

Police Station; Rough Sketch of the scene of offence and Wound Certificate of L.W.1/Manchi Koteswaramma. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of Manchi Mahesh Babu, Ganjikunra Anjaneyulu, Dr. M.Satish and H.C.3474/S. Amma Naidu (L.Ws.2, 4 to 6) and the prosecution evidence is closed as no other witness was availabe for examination.

06.After completion of prosecution side evidence, this court examined accused Nos.1 to 4 under section 313 of Cr.P.C and the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against them were put to them in Telugu, which they clearly understood, denied the same and reported no evidence in their defence. Hence, Defence evidence is closed.

07.Heard the arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the counsel for accused Nos.1 to 4 and the case is posted for Judgment. Perused the material available on record.

08.Now the point before this court, stood for consideration is : -

“Whether the prosecution proved the accusation against Accused

Nos.1 to 4 for the offences punishable under sections 324, 506 and 509

read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code, beyond all reasonable doubt?”

P O I N T :-

09.Unfolding the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 3 on its behalf. P.W.1 is the Complainant. P.Ws.2 is Witness, who got to know about the incident and P.W.3 is the Investigating Officer.

10.P.W.1 is the Complainant and Victim in the case, who deposed that about five years prior to her deposition, at around 06.00 p.m., while she was present at her house and thinking about the obstruction caused by A1 to A4 for raising crop in their field, A1 to A4 came to her house and A1 hit her head against the gate on which she sustained bleeding injury and stitches were laid. She lost consciousness and fell to ground. Later, LW2/Manchi Mahesh Babu came and admitted her in Government Hospital, Gurujala as she was denied admission at Krishna Hospital, Dachepally and police examined her at the hospital. During cross-examination, she deposed that, the accused Nos.1 and 2 are her brothers-in-law and she has property disputes with them, but no civil proceedings are pending. She admitted that she did not state before police that A1 hit her head against the iron gate of her house and she did not state anything

before police while she was in Govt. Hospital, Gurajala, but denied the

suggestion that herself and her husband foisted this false case against the accused.

6

11.P.W.2 deposed that, on 09.09.2019 at about 06.00 p.m. he went to Piduguralla and on receiving information from one of his friends about the injury sustained by P.W.1, he rushed to Krishna Hospital, Dachepally. As P.W.1 was not admitted there, they shifted her to Government Hospital, Gurazala. He noticed injury over her forehead and on enquiry, P.W.1 stated to him that, the accused Nos.1 to 4 came to their house, raised a dispute, and A1 and A2 hit her to iron gate of their house. Police Recorded the statement of PW1 at Govt. Hospital, Gurujala. Disputes arose as A1 sold their land in an extent of 28 cents to some third parties illegally and the same was questioned by them. When cross examined, he stated that neither himself nor L.W.2/Mahesh Babu were present at the time of alleged incident and he went to Piduguralla while LW2 was on duty at JP cement factory. He denied the suggestion that himself and PW1 filed false case against the accused and no incident as alleged took place.

12.P.W.3 is the Investigating Officer and he deposed as to the role played by him as Investigating Officer regarding receipt of information from the Station House Officer, Gurajala about the incident, registration of FIR in Crime No.148/2019, visiting Government Hospital, Gurazala and the scene of offence and examination of witnesses, recording their statements and service of Section 41A CrPC notice on accused. When cross examined he denied the suggestions that he did not visit Government Hospital Gurazala nor he examined LW1, LW2 and LW3 there, and that he did not visit the scene of offence nor he examined LW4 there and that PW1 did not sustain any injury and the case was registered based on false report.

13.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that, the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 consistently corroborates the incident of assault committed by A1 to A4 in furtherance of their common intention. It is further submitted that the marking of Ex.P4 wound certificate through PW3,Investigating Officer is legally valid, as the medical officer who issued the certificate had expired. Hence, the guilt of the accused stands proved beyond all reasonable doubt and they are liable to be convicted.

14.On the contrary, the learned defence counsel contended that the evidence of PW1 is inconsistent with her statement recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is further argued that PW2 is not an eyewitness to the occurrence and only speaks about the incident based on information allegedly furnished by LW4, but, the said witness was not examined by the prosecution. Likewise, LW2, who allegedly accompanied PW1 to the hospital, was also withheld from examination. It is further contended that the wound certificate has not been proved in accordance with law and, therefore, cannot be relied upon. In view of these material omissions and inconsistencies, the defence submits that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and, consequently, the accused are entitled to acquittal.

7

15.On a careful scrutiny of the evidence available on record, it is evident that PW1, the prime witness of the prosecution, did not support the prosecution case in material particulars. During her cross-examination, she admitted that she was not examined at Government Hospital, Gurazala, whereas Ex.P2, FIR, along with the hospital intimation, clearly discloses that the intimation was sent by the Medical Officer of Government Hospital, Gurazala and her statement was recorded there. This material inconsistency casts serious doubt on the very origin of the prosecution case and renders Ex.P1 statement doubtful.

16.Further, PW2 admitted that she did not state before the police about the specific overt act attributed to A1, namely, hitting PW1’s head against the gate of their house. However, the statement of LW1 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. contains such an allegation. This contradiction materially affects the credibility of the prosecution version. Moreover, though the prosecution alleged that all the accused assaulted PW1, the evidence of PW1 is shockingly silent regarding any overt acts attributed to A2 to A4. Except mentioning the alleged act of A1, PW1 has not spoken about any assault by the remaining accused. Thus, the testimony of PW1 suffers from material contradictions, omissions, and inconsistencies, striking at the very root of the prosecution case.

17.Coming to the evidence of P.W.2, it is an admitted fact that he is not an eyewitness to the incident. His knowledge regarding the occurrence is only based on information allegedly received over phone from certain friends, whose name was not even disclosed by him. However, as per the prosecution version, it was L.W.4, who informed L.W.2 about the alleged assault. Thus, the very source of information to P.W.2 remains uncertain and unexplained, leaving a vital link in the prosecution case disconnected.

18.Though the evidence of PW2 may, to a limited extent, be relevant under Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, the same does not inspire confidence in view of the material discrepancies between the testimonies of PW1 and PW2 regarding the overt acts attributed to the accused. While the consistent prosecution case, which finds support form the evidence of PW1 is that A1 alone hit PW1 against the iron gate, PW2 deposed that both A1 and A2 assaulted PW1 in the said manner. This material contradiction strikes at the core of the prosecution story. Therefore, the evidence of PW2, being hearsay in nature and inconsistent with the prosecution version, cannot be safely relied upon to base the conviction of the accused.

19.Regarding the other aspects of the case, LW2, the son of PW1 and PW2, is a material witness to the prosecution case, as he is stated to have received information about the alleged incident and shifted PW1 to the hospital. However, for reasons best known to the prosecution, the said witness was not examined. Likewise, PW4, who is alleged to have informed LW2 about the incident, was also withheld from examination. The non-examination of these crucial witnesses creates a serious gap in the prosecution case and gives rise to an adverse 8 inference against the prosecution. Their evidence would have been vital to establish the chain of events and corroborate the version of the prosecution witnesses. Accordingly, the omission to examine these material witnesses materially weakens the prosecution case.

20.Another important aspect that requires consideration is the proof of Ex.P4 wound certificate. The said document was marked through the Investigating Officer, subject to objection that it ought to have been proved through the medical officer who issued it. Though the prosecution explained that the concerned medical officer had expired, mere proof of his death does not, by itself, dispense with the requirement of proving the document in accordance with law. At least, the prosecution ought to have examined some competent person acquainted with the handwriting or signature of the deceased medical officer so as to establish the authenticity of Ex.P4. No such attempt was made by the prosecution.

21.No doubt, non-examination of such a witness may not assume much significance where the other evidence on record clearly establishes the prosecution case. However, in the present case, where the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 itself suffers from serious inconsistencies and does not inspire confidence, the failure to properly prove Ex.P4 assumes considerable importance. This omission further weakens the prosecution case and creates an additional doubt regarding the veracity of the prosecution version.

22.Further, insofar as the charges relating to criminal intimidation and insulting the modesty of PW1 are concerned, there is absolutely no evidence on record to substantiate the same. None of the prosecution witnesses have spoken about any specific threats allegedly passed by the accused or the exact words used constituting insult to the modesty of PW1. In the absence of such material particulars, the said charges also remain unproved and cannot be sustained against the accused.

23.Thus, in view of the supra deliberations and deductions drawn form the evidence, both ocular and documentary, this Court is of the clear and firm opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of accused Nos.1 to 4 beyond all reasonable doubt. Consequently, accused Nos.1 to 4 are entitled to acquittal.

24.In the result, accused Nos.1 to 4 are not found guilty for the offences punishable under sections 324, 506 and 509 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code and they are hereby acquitted under section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bonds of accused Nos.1 to 4 shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment under Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.

9

Dictated to the Stenographer, Grade-III, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me on

this the 6th day of May, 2026 in Open Court.

Sd/- K.V.V. Satyanarayana.

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Gurazala.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution :- P.W.1 : - Smt. Manchi Koteswaramma. P.W.2 : - Sri Manchi Mahesh Babu. P.W.3 : - Smt. M.Ramana/Sub-Inspector of Police, Dachepalli Police Station.

For Defence :- - N O N E -

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution :- Ex.P-1 : Statement of P.W.1, dated 09-09-2019. Ex.P-2 : F.I.R Ex.P-3 : Rough Sketch of the Scene of Offence. Ex.P-4 : Wound Certificate of P.W.1.

For Defence :- - N I L -

Sd/- K.V.V. Satyanarayana.

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Gurazala.

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

GURAZALA

PRESENT Sri K.V.V. SATYANARAYANA ,

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurazala.

Tuesday, this the 27th day of August, 2024.

C.C. No. 305/2018

Between: -

State: Inspector of Police, Gurazala Urban PS. . . Complainant

And

Gatla Ramesh, S/o Narasayya, Age 44 Years, Pulipadu Village . . . Accused

This case is coming before me on 21-08-2024 for final hearing in the presence of Sri D.Ch.Sarath Babu, Advocate for the Accused and on hearing both the sides, this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01.The Inspector of Police, Gurazala Urban PS has filed a charge sheet against the accused in Cr. No. 126/2017 for the offences punishable under

Sections 354 of Indian Penal Code (IPC).

02.The case of the prosecution in brief is that: -

Both the de-facto complainant Pancha Venkata Ramana (LW 1/P.W1) and the accused belong to Pulipadu Village and they are neighbours. The said Venkat Ramana is living by running a provision shop and the accused in running a beedi bunk and air machine. On 10-05-2017 the said Venkata Ramana, her husband Nageswara Rao (L.W 2) slept on their beds in front of their house, after having supper. At about 11:00 PM, the accused approached the cot of said

Venkata Ramana and caught hold of her hand with malicious intention to outrage her modesty and when she raised alarm, her husband woke and found the accused standing at the cot of his wife and Vemula Venkateswarlu, Veerala

Venakteswarlu and Maddineneni Srinivasa Rao (LWs 3 to 5) rushed to the scene and witnessed the accused and on seeing all of them, the accused fled away. On the next day, i.e., 11-05-2017, the victim and her husband went to the police station and lodged a report and HC 1492 K. Venkateswarlu, registered FIR in Cr.

No. 126/2017 for the offence under section 354 IPC. During the course of investigation WPC B. Naga Jyothi (LW 6) examined the victim in the presence of

HC 1492 K. Venkateswarlu (LW 7) and recorded her detailed statement under section 161 Cr.P.C on the same day, later LW 7 examined Pancha Nageswara

Rao, Vemula Venkateswarlu, Veerata Venakteswarlu and Maddineneni Srinivasa

Rao (LWs 2 to 5) and recorded their section 161 Cr.P.C statements, inspected the scene of offence and prepared, rough sketch. On 26-6-2017, Ch. V. Suresh, SI of police, Gurazala Urban PS (LW 8), served section 41A notice to the accused and released him with the direction to appear before the Hon’ble court upon service of summons and after through verification of the investigation conducted by LW 7, he filed charge sheet before this Court.

03.This case was taken on file against the accused for the offence punishable under section 354 Indian Penal Code (IPC).

04.On appearance of accused, copies of case documents were furnished to him in compliance of section 207 of Cr.P.C, and he was examined under Sec.239 of Cr.P.C. Charge is framed for the offence under section 354 IPC, the contents of charge under section 354 IPC were explained to him in Telugu. Having understood the same, he denied the commission, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

05.During the course of trial, the prosecution, in order to establish the guilt of accused, examined Pancha Venkata Ramana, P. Venakteswarlu, M. Srinivasa

Rao, Pancah Nageswara Rao, Vemulapalli Venakateswara Rao and HC 1492 K.

Venkateswarlu (LWs 1,4,5,2,3 and 7) as P.Ws.1 to 6 and relied on Exhibits P.1 to P.6. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of

WPC B. Naga Jyothi and Ch. V. Suresh, SI of police, Gurazala Urban PS (LWs 6 and 8) as not necessary and the prosecution evidence is closed.

06.After completion of prosecution side evidence, this court examined accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C and the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him were put to him in Telugu, for which he denied, stating that he has no complicity with the crime and reported no evidence in his defence.

Hence Defence evidence is closed.

07.Heard the arguments of learned APP and the counsel for accused and the case is posted for Judgment. Perused the material available on record.

08.Now the point before this court, stood for consideration is: -

Whether the prosecution proved the accusation against Accused

under section 354 IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt?

Point: -

09.Unfolding the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined

P.Ws.1 to 6 on its behalf. P.W.1 is the complainant. P.Ws. 2 to 5 are the witnesses to the incident and P.W. 6 is the investigating officer.

11.P.W. 1 is the complainant and victim in the case, who deposed that about five years ago during summer, when she was sleeping in front of their house, along with his husband and children, at about 11:00 PM the accused came to her cot in an intoxicated state and attempted to commit rape on her and caught hold of her throat on which she resisted and raised cries. On that the husband of P.W.

1 i.e., P.W. 4 woke up and the accused then escaped from the scene and that on the next day, she lodged report before the police.

12.In her cross-examination she stated that she went to the police station at 7:00 AM on the next day and the police present there directed her to come in the afternoon as there is no one available to receive the complaint and that she again went to the police station and lodged report at 2:00 PM and stated that Ex. P1 was scribed by a constable by name Venkateswarlu. P.W. 1 admitted that about seven years ago a dispute arose between the accused and her family in respect of digging a borewell and that since then there were no good terms between them and that immediately after the incident, she approached one village elder by name

Maddineni Veeraiah, and complained about the incident and that he advised her to lodge a report as the accused will not heed his words. She admitted that she came to know that the niece of the accused was raped and killed by Kommineni

Mathaiah and Maddineni Veeraiah and denied the suggestion that she filed this case against the accused on the instigation of said persons. She further denied the suggestions that she omitted to mention before the police, that the accused attempted to commit rape and that she lodged the report with a view to take vengeance against the accused.

13.The evidence of P.W.s 2,3 and 5 does not support the version of P.W. 1 and also the prosecution case as they deposed contrary to their statements before the police by stating that they do not know anything about the facts of the case and the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor declared them as unfavourable to prosecution case as they turned hostile and sought permission to put question in the nature of cross-examination. The learned APP could not elicit anything except marking the 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W. 2 as Ex.P.2, and the 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3 as Ex.P.3. and the 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.5 as Ex.P.4.

14.P.W. 4 supported the case of prosecution and corroborated the version of

P.W. 1 to some extent. He deposed that on 10-05-2017 at about 11:00 P.M he woke up hearing the cries of P.W. 1 and found the accused holding her hand and that he tried to catch the accused but he escaped from the scene and that the accused also stole his mobile phone that was placed, near his cot and that they approached the village elders on the next day, and lodged report before police on their suggestion. During his cross examination the defense counsel elicited that, he did not witness either the stealing of phone or the holding the hand of P.W. 1, by the accused and stated that, he woke up on the cries of P.W. 1 and by the time he woke up he saw the accused at a distance of about 20 to 30 feet. He further stated that they approached village elder Veeraiah, at 12:00 AM and that the said

Veeraiah was not available in his house at that time and admitted the fact that he omitted to state about the above fact relating to their approaching Veeraiah,

before the police. He further admitted that the shop of accused is situated beside

his house but the accused resides far away form his shop. He denied the suggestions that this false case was foisted against the accused as he objected the digging of borewell and that the incident did not take place.

15.P.W.6 is the investigating officer and he reiterated the contents of charge sheet and Ex. P5 and P6 i.e., FIR and Rough Sketch prepared by him were marked through him. In his cross examination he stated that P.W. 1 approached the station with a written report and admitted that except the names of P.Ws 1 and 2, no other witness name is mentioned in Ex. P1 and that P.W. 4 did not state

before him about the theft of his phone by accused and admitted that he recorded

the statements of PWs 2, 3 and 5 as P.W. 1 had shown them and that there is no averment in Ex. P1 that the incident was witnessed by PWs 2, 3 and 5.

16.Moving to the discussion as to the relevancy and proof of the evidence adduced first and foremost, the evidence of P.W. 1 suffers form omissions. The case of the prosecution as per Ex. P1 is that the accused caught hold of the hand of P.W. 1, while she was sleeping, in her statement to police under section 161

Cr.P.C, she stated that while she was sleeping, she felt that someone was holding her hand and on seeing, she noticed the accused holding her hand and raised cries, during her deposition in open court, she added that the accused attempted to rape her. One of the defences taken by the accused counsel is that the case was foisted owing to strained relations between the accused and P.W. 1 family and that one Maddinenei Veeraiah, instigated her to file the case against the accused, with a view to influence him in the rape and murder case of the niece of the accused, committed by the said Veeraiah and one Mathaiah. There is clear admission from the P.W. 1 that she went to the said Veeraiah and on his advice, the report was lodged, and denied the suggestion that the said Veeraiah, instigate her to file the present case.

17.P.W. 2,3 and 5 said to have rushed to the scene of offence upon hearing the cries of P.W. 1 and learnt about the incident through her, but they all turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution and bluntly stated that they know nothing about the case, had their evidence been given, it would have supported the prosecution case.

18.P.W. 4 is the husband of P.W. 1, his evidence suffers from both contradictions and omissions, he omitted to state before the police about the stealing of his mobile phone by the accused. Further, in his chief examination, he deposed that he saw the accused holding the hand of P.W. 1, but in his cross examination he stated that, by the time, he woke up hearing the cries of P.W. 1, he noticed the accused at a distance of 20 or 30 feet. The identification of the accused by P.W. 4, at that late hour of night from a distance of 20 or 30 feet raises a doubt in the mind of the court as to the identification as well as the presence of accused at the scene of offence. He also admitted that after the incident they approached the said Veeraiah. The contradictory statements made by P.W. 4, lead to doubt the credibility of his deposition. Further, there are contradictions between the statements of P.W. 1 and P.W. 4 as to the time of going to the police station and also as to their consulting the said Veeraiah and his advice to lodge report.

19.Considering the evidence of P.W. 6, among all the suggestions put to the witness and the questions posed, the statement that P.W. 4 never stated before him about the fact of stealing of mobile phone by the accused which is contra to the deposition of P.W. 4, in his chief examination. Further he admitted that he recorded the statements of PWs. 2,3, and 5 as P.W 1 showed them and this gives the interpretation that the investigation is faulty as the failed to examined the neighbours independently. With the given circumstances, it is not safe to rely on the evidence of the investigating officer to convict the accused.

20.By placing the whole facts, circumstance, oral and documentary evidence available on hand, it is clear that the witnesses i.e., PWs 1 and 4 being interested witnesses, added things that have not been alleged earlies. Most importantly, had the allegation of attempted rape been made, the offence charged would have been different and the said allegation was an improvised one, which P.W. 1, added to give the case an embroidered look. This kind of attempt made by P.W. 1 creates a doubt in the mind of this court as to her creation of the alleged incident on the threshold too. Further, the evidence of P.W. 4 cannot be believed as he contradicted his statement as to the holding of the hand of P.W. 1 by the accused, and his statements give raise to doubt his witnessing the scene and identifying the accused. The counsel for the accused submitted that the case on hand was falsely foisted owing to the hostilities existing between the accused and P.W. 1’s family, and the same finds probable in the given circumstances. The sword of hostilities of strained relationships between the parties is a double-edged knife and it could be used to harm either side. If not swayed properly, it could injure the party used it. However, in the case on hand I am of the view that the said weapon was used in a proper way by the defence and the same finds supports from the improvisations made by the witnesses to their earlier versions before the police.

With the given facts, circumstances, both oral and documentary evidence, the commission of the offence by the accused is doubtful. It is the duty of prosecution to establish the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt, but the same was not established in this case.

21.From the reasoning given supra it can safely be concluded that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence the accused are entitled to acquittal.

In the result, the accused is not found guilty for the offence punishable under section 354 IPC and they are hereby acquitted under section 255(1)

Cr.P.C for the said charges. The bonds of accused shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437-A Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 27th day of August, 2024.

Sd/-Sri.K.V.V.Satyanaryana

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Gurazala.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:

P.W.1: Pancha Venkata Ramana

P.W.2: P.Venkateswarlu

P.W.3: M.Srinivasa Rao

P.W.4: Pancha Nageswara Rao

P.W.5: Vemulapalli Venkateswara rao

P.W.6: K.Venkateswarlu

For Defence: None

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P.1 : Complaint of P.W.1

Ex.P.2 : Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2

Ex.P.3 : Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.3

Ex.P.4 : Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.5

Ex.P.5 :FIR

Ex.P.6 : Rough Sketch

For Defence: Nil

Material Objects:

Sd/-Sri.K.V.V.Satyanaryana

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Gurazala.

//True Copy//

ACJ(Jr.Div), GZL

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

GURAZALA

C.C.No.305/2018

Date of:

Date of Rele

Report of Apprehensi Commenc Sentence or remand/41- ase Closure Offence complaina on of e-ment of A Cr.P.C on of trial order nt accused trial

Notice bail

10-05-201711-05-201711-05-201726-06-2017-05-01-2321-03-2327-08-2024

Between:-

State: Inspector of Police, Gurazala Rural Circle. . . Complainant

And

Gatla Ramesh, S/o Narasayya, Age 44 Years, Pulipadu. . . Accused Village

Crime Number126/2017 of Gurazala Urban P.S.

OffenceSec.354 of IPC

Plea of AccusedNot guilty

Finding of the CourtFound not guilty

Reasons for delayDue to non production of witnesses

Judgment:

In the result, the accused is not found guilty for the offence punishable under section 354 IPC and they are hereby acquitted under section 255(1) Cr.P.C for the said charges. The bonds of accused shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437-A Cr.P.C.

Sd/-Sri.K.V.V.Satyanaryana

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Gurazala. Copy submitted to :

The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-Cum-Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur.

Copy to: The Superintendent of Police, Guntur Rural.

//True Copy//

ACJ(Jr.Div), GZL